[Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?

From: Markus Karg <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:52:53 +0200

The best to reduce barrier to entry would be: LGPL single licence and no
need to sign a contract with Oracle. I do not see anybody has an entry
barrier by sticking with SVN. You cannot send a pull request right now,
as you first have to sign a contract with Oracle, and then have to add
CDDL licence. Otherwise they do not accept your code anyways. GIT and HG
do not help in any way. Currently you have to send in a patch, and you
can create that with SVN very easily. GIT and HG makes only sense if
that organizational changes happen FIRST. And: ". It took a little time
to ramp up" does not sound like a change that a project should make
without a real need or expected benefit. Don't fix what is not broken.
Jersey's biggest drawback is the contract with Oracle, the CDDL and the
non-democratic leadership. It's problem is not SVN.





From: [] On Behalf Of Tauren
Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 15:45
Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?


In my opinion, using GIT with github or similar reduces the barrier to
entry. It makes it easier for people to contribute without having to be


Maybe it's just me, but to me the barrier to entry is much smaller if
all I have to do is clone a github repository, tweak code to solve my
problem, push, and then send a pull request. Using SVN, I can't really
contribute without becoming a committer or jumping through hoops. With
SVN, the workflow would be to checkout anonymously, tweak code to solve
my problem, create a patch file, locate the issue tracker, create an
account on the issue tracker, post a bug report, and then attach the
patch file.

I'm sure someone will say there isn't really much of a difference, but
once you've actually done it both ways, the git workflow is really much
simpler. And from a maintainer's point of view, it becomes less
important who has commit access and who doesn't, because anyone can send
a pull request.


I too resisted switching to git for a long time and finally made the
change about 6 months ago. It took a little time to ramp up, but I was
soon quite productive with it. I wish I had made the switch way earlier.


Just my 2c.



On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Marek Potociar
<> wrote:

On 04/12/2011 09:00 AM, Markus Karg wrote:
> SVN is the most commonly used version control still, and it is
> used in the project without a real need to change.

Apart form the general reasons that I briefly mentioned in my initial
email where we anticipate to make our everyday
developer lives easier, we are looking into improving project processes
with regard to anticipated transition of the
main development focus from 1.x to 2.x, better user adoption,
integration with other projects etc.

As for SVK, I am not familiar with it. Tatu is right that we want to
consider primarily well-known choices.


So there should be
> good reasons to change. The sole reason I understand from the original
> posting is the wish for distribution. SVK provides exactly this. It is
> an extension to SVN that adds distribution. So it is the most obvious
> choice, since it keeps SVN but just adds the wanted functionality. The
> learning curve is a joke as it just adds very few commands ontop of
> GIT and HG enforce everybody to change to GIT or HG, even those pretty
> happy with SVN. I do not see why everybody should learn GIT or HG if
> same could be done easily with a simple SVN extension.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tatu Saloranta []
> Sent: Montag, 11. April 2011 20:44
> To:
> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Markus Karg <>
> wrote:
>> I'd vote to stick with SVN. But why not trying SVK?
> I think team is trying to choose from the obvious candidates, ones
> that are most used.
> So perhaps you could expand on why SVK should be considered over more
> well-known choices?
> -+ Tatu +-